RE: Copper Thieving

[Cook, Jack]

Why not achieve copper balance by adding extra grounded areas on the
surface; ie, copper fill pegged to the normal ground layer(s) at multiple
points?  Large areas can be gridded in some fashion; it doesn't have to be
solid copper.  

I'm one who does not like to see floating copper, of any size or shape,
especially in high frequency areas of a board.

Jack Cook
Xerox Corp.

-Original Message-
From: Perry Qu [mailto:perry...@alcatel.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:19 PM
To: Roman, Dan
Cc: 'Stephen Phillips'; rehel...@mmm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
DORIN OPREA
Subject: Re: Copper Thieving



Hi! Dan:

I understand that EMC guys don't want to see the floating coppers on the PCB
because of ESD and/or emission problem. But on the manufacture side, they
claim
that if you don't do copper balance on the layer where you have large area
without copper, you will sure have over-eching in that area, plus warpage of
the
board.

The question is, where do we find a compromised solution that makes everyone
happy ?

Regards

Perry

Roman, Dan wrote:

 Remember that you can also cause yourself all kinds of EMI headaches if
you
 have electrically floating copper areas or patterns on the board.  It has
 lead to many arguments with the CAD department over the years!

 -- Dan

 -Original Message-
 From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com]
 Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 9:33 AM
 To: rehel...@mmm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject: Re: Copper Thieving

   Copper applied to the outer PCB layers, in a pattern,
 to even out the copper placement so the board is less
 likely to warp through soldering.  Obviously, it would
 be put where there is not etch, large open areas, to
 somewhat offset where you might have planes of
 copper elsewhere on the layer.

   Beware of Creepage and Clearance violations
 (if applicable).  Some PCB fab. houses have
 carte-blanche to add this, we don't allow that -
 and control it as part of our own PCB CAD
 instead.

   Best regards,
   Stephen

 At 09:15 AM 1/18/01 Thursday , rehel...@mmm.com wrote:
 
 Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is
copper
 thieving?
 
 
 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
 
 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc
 
 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 
 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 
 

 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Beta Shipments

[Nick Rouse]

No. Paul, there are none.
There are no exceptions in the EMC directive or the low voltage directive
for beta testing and no way of getting around the regulations by any label
of non-conformance. In the EMC directive any relevant apparatus placed
on the market or taken into service must meet the regulations and have a
CE mark and Declaration of Conformity. The guidelines issued by the
commission show that both terms have a wide interpretation.  An apparatus
covered by the EMC directive is put into service when it is first used [in
the EEA territory]
Placing on the market is first making available, against payment or free of
charge, ... for the purpose of distribution and/or use in the EEA
Making available means  ... transfer of ownership or physical hand-over
...  to the final customer or user in a commercial transaction  ... (sale,
loan
hire, leasing, gift or any other type of commercial legal instrument)
The Commission's guidelines state that placing the product on the market
does not concern  the display of the product at trade fairs and exhibitions
It may not be in full conformity with the provision of the EMC directive,
but this fact must be clearly advertised next to the apparatus being
exhibited
Note this exception concerns only placing on the market not taking into
service
and does not even mention switching it on and has no mention of going to a
customer's site
An anomaly here is the UK implementation of the directive. Since the
directives
by themselves do not have direct force of law anywhere they need to be
implemented into national law in each Community State. In countries like
France
and Germany the EMC directive is transcribed almost verbatim into the
national law
In the UK a fairly liberal interpretation of the directive is used.
In the UK 1992 Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations SI 1992 No. 2372
the term supply is used instead of place on the market.  The question of
trade fairs and exhibitions, not mentioned in the directive and therefore
not
in the French and German laws is written directly into the UK law.
supply is defined as first making available of relevant apparatus for a
consumer
in the Community including, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, offering
to supply, agreeing to supply,  exposing for supply and possessing for
supply such
apparatus ... provided  however that relevant apparatus shall not be
regarded as
having been supplied by reason only of its having been displayed at a trade
fair
or exhibition ...  This is not too different from the directive as
elaborated by the
Commission but the point at which the UK law strays significantly from the
Directive and the Commission guidelines is in the question of taking into
service.
In clause 6 of the UK regulations it says ... relevant apparatus shall not
be regarded
as having been taken into service by reason only of its having been operated
by or
on behalf of the manufacturer at a trade fair or exhibition or by a supplier
for
demonstration purposes  This last phrase would seem to clear the way in the
UK
for a sales rep to take a non-compliant  demonstration model around to
customers
sites and demonstrating how it works. However I would say that any beta test
in the
form of a trial to see how it performs under field conditions would exceed
the most
generous interpretation of UK law irrespective of whether a company
representative
is present and would be way outside the law in most of the rest of the
Community
where first use implies taking into service.

The Low Voltage directive is even tougher.   There is no trade fairs and
exhibitions
clause. If the equipment is switched on by the customer or your sales rep it
must be
electrically safe and be CE marked for the Low voltage directive

Regards
Nick Rouse



- Original Message -
From: O'Shaughnessy, Paul paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com
To: 'Lou Guerin' lgue...@littlefeet-inc.com; EMC-PSTC
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: Beta Shipments




 Can anyone direct me to the EC rules which govern beta site installations?

 For example, what if a contract is signed with the beta site, specifying
 that the unit is not yet evaluated, and specifying terms of beta testing
and
 timeframe.  Would that qualify as under the control of the manufacturer?
 Having your own people run the thing, even at a remote site, rather
defeats
 the intention of a beta test, and it's a bit hard to believe that this is
 how it's really done.

 Thanks,

 Paul O'Shaughnessy
 Affymetrix, Inc.

 Lou Guerin wrote:

 For Europe you have less leeway,  you can show the product at a trade
show
 with a PROMINENT label declaring that the product has not been evaluated
for
 compliance to the appropriate LVD and EMC directives.  The directives
 prohibit the placing on the market or putting into service any product
 that does not conform to the directives. This only allows you to
demonstrate
 the product at the customer's site if it is always under 

RE: Copper Thieving

[Dick Grobner]

I agree - what is it? I tried looking it up in some of my PC design books at
the start of this one and came up blank. Does it go by another name?

-Original Message-
From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:15 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Copper Thieving



Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is copper
thieving?


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1

[Veit, Andy]

All-
Thank you for the responses, I was able to read the scopes at this link:
http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/

Interesting to note that it looks like UL split IEC 1010-1 into THREE
standards:
UL3101-1 STANDARD FOR SAFETY FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FOR LABORATORY USE
UL3111-1 STANDARD FOR SAFETY FOR ELECTRICAL MEASURING AND TEST EQUIPMENT
UL3121-1 STANDARD FOR SAFETY FOR PROCESS CONTROL EQUIPMENT

The scopes for all three are nearly identical, but there are numerous
deviations listed before the contents page in each standard.  The second
deviation listed in UL3101-1 is to remove measurement and test and
control from the scope, effectively limiting what follows to electrical
equipment for laboratory use.  Likewise, the deviations for UL3121-1 remove
laboratory equipment and measurement and test equipment from the scope,
and predictably, the deviations in UL3111-1 remove laboratory equipment
and control from the scope.  Thus allowing them to efficiently create 3
different standards from the text of one.

Thanks again to all those that responded.
-Andy

Andrew Veit
Systems Design Engineer
MTS Systems Corp
Ph: 919.677.2507
Fax: 919.677.2480
1001 Sheldon Drive 
Cary, NC 27513 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re:emc-pstc discussion list

[Jim Bacher]

forwarding for e...@euroconsult.com

Reply Separator
Subject:emc-pstc discussion list
Author: e...@euroconsult.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   1/18/01 1:37 PM

Art Michael, a member of the emc-pstc discussion list, forwarded to 
me a question from Christian Marti that appeared on the list 5 
January 2001.  My response to Mr. Marti is below which you may post 
on to the list if you wish.  

As a member of IEEE and several Product Safety organizations, I 
would like to be added to the discussion list.

Thank you.
Werner Paster (01213412)


From: Self Single-user mode
To:   cma...@efieurope.com
Subject:  Re: VDE 0675 Part 6 in ENGLISH ?
Send reply to:e...@euroconsult.com
Date sent:Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:17:07

Dear Mr. Marti:

I am responding to your inquiry to the emc-pstc discussion list from 5
January 2001.

Our company, Europort, is a BSI distributor of safety standards and
our research indicates that VDE 0675 is identical to EN/IEC 60099. It
appears that there is not an equivalent EN 60099-6 standard published
yet.

However, at IEC we found Committee 37 is working on the IEC 60099
series.  To learn more about their work please contact IEC directly. 
Their website is www.iec.ch .

To order standards from Europort please visit our website 
www.europort.com .

Sincerely,

 Werner Paster

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Copper Thieving

[Roman, Dan]

I make them ground it with appropriately spaced vias.

-Original Message-
From: Perry Qu [mailto:perry...@alcatel.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 4:19 PM
To: Roman, Dan
Cc: 'Stephen Phillips'; rehel...@mmm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org;
DORIN OPREA
Subject: Re: Copper Thieving


Hi! Dan:

I understand that EMC guys don't want to see the floating coppers on the PCB
because of ESD and/or emission problem. But on the manufacture side, they
claim
that if you don't do copper balance on the layer where you have large area
without copper, you will sure have over-eching in that area, plus warpage of
the
board.

The question is, where do we find a compromised solution that makes everyone
happy ?

Regards

Perry

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Looking at leakage current specs

[David Gelfand]

Gary,

The measurement is made with all power supplies in parallel, but
you can exceed the 3.5 mA limit if you provide a warning to ground equipment
before connecting.  With standard power cords this is done by having the ground
pin slightly longer than the line and neutral.

David

David Gelfand
Regulatory Approvals
Memotec Communications Inc.
Montreal Canada

- Original Message -
From: Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:44 AM
Subject: Looking at leakage current specs



Was reviewing a number of power supply specifications and would like
to parallel a couple, but the leakage/touch current on them is in the 2 mA
range. Isn't most of the leakage current produced (produced might not be the
word I want) in the upfront filter caps - W and Y capacitors and such? If I
parallel these aren't I likely to see a significant increase in the leakage
current, and probably blow by the 3.5 mm requirement for ITE?
Would the measurement be made twice, once for each supply or would I
have to provide a common input to both supplies and then measure between
chassis and this common point's protective earth terminal?
Gary

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Copper Thieving

[Perry Qu]

Hi! Dan:

I understand that EMC guys don't want to see the floating coppers on the PCB
because of ESD and/or emission problem. But on the manufacture side, they claim
that if you don't do copper balance on the layer where you have large area
without copper, you will sure have over-eching in that area, plus warpage of the
board.

The question is, where do we find a compromised solution that makes everyone
happy ?

Regards

Perry

Roman, Dan wrote:

 Remember that you can also cause yourself all kinds of EMI headaches if you
 have electrically floating copper areas or patterns on the board.  It has
 lead to many arguments with the CAD department over the years!

 -- Dan

 -Original Message-
 From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com]
 Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 9:33 AM
 To: rehel...@mmm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject: Re: Copper Thieving

   Copper applied to the outer PCB layers, in a pattern,
 to even out the copper placement so the board is less
 likely to warp through soldering.  Obviously, it would
 be put where there is not etch, large open areas, to
 somewhat offset where you might have planes of
 copper elsewhere on the layer.

   Beware of Creepage and Clearance violations
 (if applicable).  Some PCB fab. houses have
 carte-blanche to add this, we don't allow that -
 and control it as part of our own PCB CAD
 instead.

   Best regards,
   Stephen

 At 09:15 AM 1/18/01 Thursday , rehel...@mmm.com wrote:
 
 Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is copper
 thieving?
 
 
 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
 
 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc
 
 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 
 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 
 

 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: FCC Part 68 Continuing Compliance

[JPR3]

In a message dated 1/17/01, Courtland Thomas write:

 I have a question concerning coninuing compliance for Part 68. I believe
 that we are required to submit units for testing every six months. If the
 FCC audits and finds that the test reports aren't up to date, then there can
 be problems. This testing costs around $1500.00 for our ITE products. This
 becomes a very expensive process. Is there anything that can be done to
 eliminate this cost. I would like to test the units in house and log the
 results and use that info as my continuing compliance data. Any thoughts on
 this?
 


Hi Courtland:

To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why you can't do the 
continuing compliance testing yourself.  In fact, you can even do the initial 
testing yourself if you are equipped to do so.  For the initial testing you 
would have to submit a written report to the FCC, but there is no filing 
requirement for continuing compliance.  You simply have to keep the test data 
on file.  If you have a lot of different products in production, the 
economics favor in-house testing.

A few years ago one of my clients who had about 30 different products decided 
to do their continuing compliance testing in-house.  They figured the savings 
of at least $60,000 per year would easily justify the cost of the test 
equipment and a part time technician.  They purchased the FCC Part 68 test 
equipment from Compliance Design, but never actually used it.  I guess they 
just got too busy with other priorities to set up the in-house capability.  

Recently they told me they would like to unload the equipment, so if you are 
interested I will put you in touch with them.  I wouldn't necessarily 
recommend the Compliance Design equipment for a new purchase, but if the 
price is right on the used equipment, it might be an attractive option.



Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848
http://www.randolph-telecom.com

RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core

[Tania]

Chris,

Just be careful.   Many labs say they will do it, but end up sub-contracting
the various tests to other labs.   Depending upon the nature of your
equipment, not all labs will have the facilities to perform the fire tests,
earthquake, vibration, etc..   Thus, you may find out that your equipment
still will be shipped to various places to have these tests done.

I don't know if things have changed, but very recently, for example, the air
contaminants tests could only be performed at the Battelle Institute in the
U.S.   In my estimation, Underwriters Laboratories in Norhbrook, Illinois
(U.S.)  have the best facilities for fire tests.My position would be, if
I have to ship product somewhere, I would like to ship to a lab that could
perform most of the tests at their premises and reliably sub-contract out
the rest.   The key word here, is reliably.

Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com
Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions


-Original Message-
From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:56 AM
To: 'Chris Collin'
Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core



Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I
believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more).
Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin
or Gonen Usishkin.

Feel free to post your findings.

Regards,
Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com)
307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8
Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 
E-mail: nsh...@catena.com

 -Original Message-
From:   Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:Testfacilities GR-1089-Core


Hi,

I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for
Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE?
Thanks for any information.

Chris Collin

Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
http://www.shopping.altavista.com

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Impedance Shielding Eff.

[ChasGrasso]

Hey Derek - Don't be shy. Can't we be all party to
some of the dos  donts??

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Copper Thieving

[David Gelfand]

How does electrically floating copper interact with electromagnetic fields?

David

- Original Message -
From: Roman, Dan dan.ro...@dialogic.com
To: 'Stephen Phillips' step...@cisco.com; rehel...@mmm.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: Copper Thieving



Remember that you can also cause yourself all kinds of EMI headaches if you
have electrically floating copper areas or patterns on the board.  It has
lead to many arguments with the CAD department over the years!

-- Dan

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 9:33 AM
To: rehel...@mmm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Copper Thieving



  Copper applied to the outer PCB layers, in a pattern,
to even out the copper placement so the board is less
likely to warp through soldering.  Obviously, it would
be put where there is not etch, large open areas, to
somewhat offset where you might have planes of
copper elsewhere on the layer.

  Beware of Creepage and Clearance violations
(if applicable).  Some PCB fab. houses have
carte-blanche to add this, we don't allow that -
and control it as part of our own PCB CAD
instead.

  Best regards,
  Stephen

At 09:15 AM 1/18/01 Thursday , rehel...@mmm.com wrote:

Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is copper
thieving?


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: GS N151

[WOODS]

I made an incorrect statement. GS marking is not mandatory, but compliance
is mandatory if the equipment is covered by the Equipment Safety Law.
However, you will find that many customers will demand the GS mark.

Richard Woods

--
From:  WOODS, RICHARD
Sent:  Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:53 PM
To:  emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:  RE: GS  N151

The GS mark is mandatory for all equipment covered by the Equipment Safety
Law. The equipment must comply with all applicable national regulations
including worker health regulations. For example, PCs used as workstations
must comply with EN60950 as well as the German ergonomic standard ZH1 which
has requirements for the keyboard and monitor and the contrast and
reflections of the surfaces of the equipment. Any of the TUVs will determine
and apply the applicable national regulations as part of the TUV GS
certification.

Richard Woods

--
From:  Patricia Knudsen (EWU) [SMTP:ewup...@am1.ericsson.se]
Sent:  Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:19 PM
To:  'brian.mcauli...@tellabs.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc:  nuala.mcma...@tellabs.com
Subject:  RE: GS  N151

I'm not familiar with N151, but the GS mark is the German Safety mark.  You
can find more information about it from your local TUV office.

Patty Knudsen 
Ericsson Wireless Communications 

-Original Message- 
From: brian.mcauli...@tellabs.com [ mailto:brian.mcauli...@tellabs.com
mailto:brian.mcauli...@tellabs.com ] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:09 AM 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
Cc: nuala.mcma...@tellabs.com 
Subject: GS  N151 



Can anybody identify with below ? 

Brian 
Tellabs 


-Original Message- 
From:   richard Murphy richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com 
[SMTP:richard Murphy richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com] 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:41 AM 
To: McMahon, Nuala 
Cc: richard Murphy richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com 
Subject:International safety standards 

Nuala, 
I spoke to you when I worked in Schaffner as you can see I have moved 
on to 
Flextronics. 
I wonder if you help me please I am looking for information on 
international 
safety standards they are as follows: 

N151, I think it maybe Japanese or Korean? 
GS, I think it maybe German? 

I have checked various website without any success. 

Richard Murphy. 
Ext no: 15125. 
Phone no : 353 61 485125. 
e-mail:richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com 




--- 
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety 
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 

To cancel your subscription, send mail to: 
 majord...@ieee.org 
with the single line: 
 unsubscribe emc-pstc 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com 
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: GS N151

[WOODS]

The GS mark is mandatory for all equipment covered by the Equipment Safety
Law. The equipment must comply with all applicable national regulations
including worker health regulations. For example, PCs used as workstations
must comply with EN60950 as well as the German ergonomic standard ZH1 which
has requirements for the keyboard and monitor and the contrast and
reflections of the surfaces of the equipment. Any of the TUVs will determine
and apply the applicable national regulations as part of the TUV GS
certification.

Richard Woods

--
From:  Patricia Knudsen (EWU) [SMTP:ewup...@am1.ericsson.se]
Sent:  Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:19 PM
To:  'brian.mcauli...@tellabs.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc:  nuala.mcma...@tellabs.com
Subject:  RE: GS  N151

I'm not familiar with N151, but the GS mark is the German Safety mark.  You
can find more information about it from your local TUV office.

Patty Knudsen 
Ericsson Wireless Communications 

-Original Message- 
From: brian.mcauli...@tellabs.com [ mailto:brian.mcauli...@tellabs.com
mailto:brian.mcauli...@tellabs.com ] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:09 AM 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
Cc: nuala.mcma...@tellabs.com 
Subject: GS  N151 



Can anybody identify with below ? 

Brian 
Tellabs 


-Original Message- 
From:   richard Murphy richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com 
[SMTP:richard Murphy richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com] 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:41 AM 
To: McMahon, Nuala 
Cc: richard Murphy richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com 
Subject:International safety standards 

Nuala, 
I spoke to you when I worked in Schaffner as you can see I have moved 
on to 
Flextronics. 
I wonder if you help me please I am looking for information on 
international 
safety standards they are as follows: 

N151, I think it maybe Japanese or Korean? 
GS, I think it maybe German? 

I have checked various website without any success. 

Richard Murphy. 
Ext no: 15125. 
Phone no : 353 61 485125. 
e-mail:richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com 




--- 
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety 
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 

To cancel your subscription, send mail to: 
 majord...@ieee.org 
with the single line: 
 unsubscribe emc-pstc 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com 
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core

[David Spencer]

Hi Chris,
The correct response to this question is: Check with your prospective
customers.  Each RBOC and CLEC has a different bent on who's tests they will
accept and there are always exceptions to the hard and fast operating
procedures proclaimed at the annual conferences.  There are many labs that
are not OSHA certified that perform NEBS tests and write reports accepted by
all the principle players.  A very good for instance is the Telcordia
(Belcore) lab itself, which is not an NRTL lab.  The most important part of
the whole experience is to make sure the lab you use has previous experience
writing NEBS test reports or is in very close communications with your
customers SME's in the various NEBS areas BEFORE testing begins.
 
Rule of thumb, from my perspective:  Meeting the requirements of Verizon and
SBC will take care of 95% of your prospective customers.  ATT has a couple
more hoops, accounting for the last 5%.
 
One last thing, you should be aware that there is a separate list serv for
NEBS questions.  You can sign up on the RCIC web site.  Although many
members of the EMC-PSTC list are members of both lists, it is always a good
idea to avoid leaching bandwidth from those who have little interest in US
telephony compliance.  Let me know if you need contact information and have
a Great Day!
 
Best Regards,
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications
 
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:54 AM
To: 'John Juhasz'; 'daniel.sic...@marconi.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core


As I posted earlier, in theory any OSHA certified lab should qualify as
a NRTL. I find it interesting that they don't even have to have NEBS items
listed in their accreditation standards just be a OSHA NRTL. I don't have
the exact web address but you can check this who has what on the WEB. The
last time I did it I believe it was pretty straight forward with a search
reference to OSHA rather than some horrible governmental acryonym.
There is another method you can consider, if you have a NRTL oversee the
test the environmental lab itself doesn't necessarily have to be an OSHA
NRTL. Choose with care and shop around.
At the last symposium there was some generally reluctant acceptance of
non-NRTL's because of a recent crunch in available time at the labs, but
this would be my personnal last resort.
There are more labs out there than one might first suspect, but if
you're doing this for the first time you want somebody with experience
giving you a solid hand.
Gary

[Gary McInturff]  -Original Message-
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:15 AM
To: 'daniel.sic...@marconi.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core



If I may add to that . . . 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my past NEBS experience (prior to 1998) 
taught me that you can't just use any lab 
in the US either (I don't know if that's changed since 1998). 
The RBOCs are fussy in this regard. 
In addition to Telcordia themselves, there are a couple of large ones that
advertise 
that their NEBS data is accepted by the RBOCs . . . 

John Juhasz 
Fiber Options 
Bohemia, NY 


-Original Message- 
From: daniel.sic...@marconi.com [ mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com
mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com ] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:09 PM 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: Re: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core 





Chris, 

From what has been said during the NEBS 2000 Conference held 
in Baltimore at the beginning of October.  The only report 
acceptable to the RBOCs are those issued by a Test House located 
in the United States. 

Thus if your intended market is the United States, which I think 
is the cases, than you will have to test in a US based facility. 


DISCLAIMER:  The above opinion is mine and does not necessarily 
 reflects that of my employer. 

Daniel Sicard 
Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification 
Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp 
Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631  Fax: 514-822-4077 
E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com

Web: http://www.marconi.com http://www.marconi.com  



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Australia Safety Approvals - Appendix BC

[WOODS]

Attached is the Appendix BC of the previously send document. 

 APPENDIX B.doc 

Richard Woods


APPENDIX B.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Australia Safety Approvals - Appendix A

[WOODS]

Attached is the Appendix A of the previously send document. Appendix BC
will follow.

 appendix A.doc 

Richard Woods


appendix A.doc
Description: MS-Word document

RE: Copper Thieving

[Abbas Hosseinian]

Dan,

Would you please point out what kinds of EMI headaches this would cause?

Thanks, Abbas


At 12:32 PM 1/18/01 -0500, Roman, Dan wrote:

Remember that you can also cause yourself all kinds of EMI headaches if you
have electrically floating copper areas or patterns on the board.  It has
lead to many arguments with the CAD department over the years!

-- Dan

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 9:33 AM
To: rehel...@mmm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Copper Thieving



  Copper applied to the outer PCB layers, in a pattern, 
to even out the copper placement so the board is less 
likely to warp through soldering.  Obviously, it would 
be put where there is not etch, large open areas, to 
somewhat offset where you might have planes of 
copper elsewhere on the layer.  

  Beware of Creepage and Clearance violations 
(if applicable).  Some PCB fab. houses have 
carte-blanche to add this, we don't allow that - 
and control it as part of our own PCB CAD 
instead.  

  Best regards, 
  Stephen  

At 09:15 AM 1/18/01 Thursday , rehel...@mmm.com wrote:

Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is copper
thieving?


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Copper Thieving

[Roman, Dan]

Remember that you can also cause yourself all kinds of EMI headaches if you
have electrically floating copper areas or patterns on the board.  It has
lead to many arguments with the CAD department over the years!

-- Dan

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 9:33 AM
To: rehel...@mmm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Copper Thieving



  Copper applied to the outer PCB layers, in a pattern, 
to even out the copper placement so the board is less 
likely to warp through soldering.  Obviously, it would 
be put where there is not etch, large open areas, to 
somewhat offset where you might have planes of 
copper elsewhere on the layer.  

  Beware of Creepage and Clearance violations 
(if applicable).  Some PCB fab. houses have 
carte-blanche to add this, we don't allow that - 
and control it as part of our own PCB CAD 
instead.  

  Best regards, 
  Stephen  

At 09:15 AM 1/18/01 Thursday , rehel...@mmm.com wrote:

Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is copper
thieving?


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Australia Safety Approvals

[WOODS]

Attached is a Word file that describes the approval process in Australia.
The annex will be sent in a second e-mail due to size constraints.

 explanatory notes.doc 
Richard Woods


explanatory notes.doc
Description: MS-Word document

RE: HP probe

[PGodfrey]

Dave, Think this is what you are looking for:-

http://www.tm.agilent.com/classes/MasterServlet?view=productdatasheetpro-It
emID=101990language=englocale=USFamilyTitle=Related%20Product

Phillip Godfrey - Manager, Product Safety
KTL Dallas, Inc.
802, N.Kealy,
Lewisville,
Texas 75057-3136

Tel : (972) 436-9600
Fax: (972) 436-2667
http://www.ktl.com/

email : pgodf...@icomply.com


 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Wilson [SMTP:dwil...@alidian.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 2:59 PM
 To:   'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
 Subject:  HP probe
 
 
 Can anyone tell me the frequency range of the HP85024A? I've looked on the
 Agilent web-site but can't find a reference to it.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Dave Wilson
 Alidian Networks Inc.
 
 www.alidian.com
 
 
 
 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
 
 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc
 
 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 
 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1

[WELLMAN,RON (A-PaloAlto,ex1)]

Hello all,

The reason why UL has split IEC 61010-1 into two standards (UL 3101-1 and
3111-1) has to do with the Instrument Society of America (ISA). The US
National Standard for Laboratory Equipment has been owned by UL while the US
National Standard for Test and Measurement Equipment has been owned by ISA.
It turns out that ISA S82.01 is the US National Standard for TM Equipment
while the last time a saw it, UL 3101-1 was in the process to become the US
National Standard for Laboratoty Equipment, replacing UL 1262.

Regards,
+=+
|Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229   |
|Agilent Technologies |FAX   : 408-345-8630   |
|5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com|
|Mailstop 54L-SQ  |WWW   : http://www.agilent.com |
|Santa Clara, California 95052 USA|   |
+=+
| Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age   |
|  eighteen. - Albert Einstein   |
+=+



-Original Message-
From: acar...@uk.xyratex.com [mailto:acar...@uk.xyratex.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:36 AM
To: Veit, Andy
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1



Andy

I use these two standards on a daily bases and you are right, they are
pretty
much identical. Yet to find a difference.

UL3101-1 Electrical Equipment for Laboratory Use - General Requirements

UL3111-1 Electrical  Measuring and Test Equipment - General Requirements.

UL3111-1 is the UL version of IEC1010 when it comes to electrical test
equipment, e.g. a DVM.

Do not ask me why UL in it's infinite wisdom thought they needed two
identical
standards Probably to make you two inspection fees on two Files. !!!

Veit, Andy wrote:

 Folks-
 Can someone give the scope of UL 3111-1?  Or tell me how is it's scope
 differs from UL 3101-1?
 I have a copy of UL 3101-1, and it appears that it is very similar to IEC
 1010-1, but I don't have a copy of UL 3111-1 (yet!).
 I read a message in the IEEE-PSTC archive where someone said that UL
created
 the standards 3111-1 and 3101-1 from IEC 1010-1, but there were no further
 details about how the standards differ.

 Thank you-
 -Andy Veit

 Andrew Veit
 Systems Design Engineer
 MTS Systems Corp
 Ph: 919.677.2507
 Fax: 919.677.2480
 1001 Sheldon Drive
 Cary, NC 27513

 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

--

Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer
Xyratex Engineering Laboratory
Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Copper Thieving

[James, Chris]

.. and to maintain even etching and plating distribution
over the whole board and thus avoid problems during PCB
manufacture

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com]
Sent: 18 January 2001 14:33
To: rehel...@mmm.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Copper Thieving



  Copper applied to the outer PCB layers, in a pattern, 
to even out the copper placement so the board is less 
likely to warp through soldering.  Obviously, it would 
be put where there is not etch, large open areas, to 
somewhat offset where you might have planes of 
copper elsewhere on the layer.  

  Beware of Creepage and Clearance violations 
(if applicable).  Some PCB fab. houses have 
carte-blanche to add this, we don't allow that - 
and control it as part of our own PCB CAD 
instead.  

  Best regards, 
  Stephen  

At 09:15 AM 1/18/01 Thursday , rehel...@mmm.com wrote:

Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is copper
thieving?


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core

[Gary McInturff]

As I posted earlier, in theory any OSHA certified lab should qualify as
a NRTL. I find it interesting that they don't even have to have NEBS items
listed in their accreditation standards just be a OSHA NRTL. I don't have
the exact web address but you can check this who has what on the WEB. The
last time I did it I believe it was pretty straight forward with a search
reference to OSHA rather than some horrible governmental acryonym.
There is another method you can consider, if you have a NRTL oversee the
test the environmental lab itself doesn't necessarily have to be an OSHA
NRTL. Choose with care and shop around.
At the last symposium there was some generally reluctant acceptance of
non-NRTL's because of a recent crunch in available time at the labs, but
this would be my personnal last resort.
There are more labs out there than one might first suspect, but if
you're doing this for the first time you want somebody with experience
giving you a solid hand.
Gary

[Gary McInturff]  -Original Message-
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:15 AM
To: 'daniel.sic...@marconi.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core



If I may add to that . . . 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my past NEBS experience (prior to 1998) 
taught me that you can't just use any lab 
in the US either (I don't know if that's changed since 1998). 
The RBOCs are fussy in this regard. 
In addition to Telcordia themselves, there are a couple of large ones that
advertise 
that their NEBS data is accepted by the RBOCs . . . 

John Juhasz 
Fiber Options 
Bohemia, NY 


-Original Message- 
From: daniel.sic...@marconi.com [ mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com
mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com ] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:09 PM 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: Re: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core 





Chris, 

From what has been said during the NEBS 2000 Conference held 
in Baltimore at the beginning of October.  The only report 
acceptable to the RBOCs are those issued by a Test House located 
in the United States. 

Thus if your intended market is the United States, which I think 
is the cases, than you will have to test in a US based facility. 


DISCLAIMER:  The above opinion is mine and does not necessarily 
 reflects that of my employer. 

Daniel Sicard 
Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification 
Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp 
Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631  Fax: 514-822-4077 
E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com

Web: http://www.marconi.com http://www.marconi.com  

Re: Consumer Electronics Compatibility

[Ron Pickard]

Ralph,

Is the EMCAB-1 to which you refer the one issued by Industry Canada, If so, it 
is EMCAB-1 Issue 3
and can be downloaded (in PDF) for free at:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf01004e.html

Please note that as this document's title (EMC Advisory Bulletin) suggests, 
this document is only an
advisory bulletin and, as such, contains no requirements. Its focus relates to 
immunity in Canada.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com





 
Ralph  
 
Cameron To: Price, Ed 
ed.pr...@cubic.com, EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) 
ralphc@igs.nemc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org  
 
et  cc:
 
Sent by: Subject: Re: Consumer Electronics 
Compatibility 
owner-emc-pst   
 
c...@ieee.org   


 

 
01/16/01
 
03:09 PM
 
Please  
 
respond to  
 
Ralph  
 
Cameron
 

 

 




Sorry, the attachment called EMCAB-1, Elecrtomagnetic Compatibility
Bulletin -1 is 230K of PDF format so it exceeds the server limit.

If any one is interested i will send it to you separately.

Ralph Cameron

- Original Message -
From: Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com
To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:02 AM
Subject: Consumer Electronics Compatibility



 Ralph:

 Would you provide a little more detail about the 30MHz Consumer
Electronics
 compatibility problems that you have been addressing? Are you finding that
 the path is a direct galvanic connection, or is the problem caused
primarily
 by radiation of energy off of the power lines? What are the most common
 emitting devices, and what types of devices are the most numerous victims?
 And of course, what's usually the best solution?

 Thanks,

 Ed



 -Original Message-
 From: Ralph Cameron [mailto:ral...@igs.net]
 Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 7:57 PM
 To: Ken Javor; dan kwok
 Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
 Subject: Re: Site Correlation



 No, your message is clear, what I am saying is that the emissions below
 30Mhz cause the majority of the interference problems to consumer
 electronics and that's not being addressed.

 Ralph Cameron

 - Original Message -
 From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
 To: Ralph Cameron ral...@igs.net; dan kwok dk...@intetron.com
 Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:34 PM
 Subject: Re: Site Correlation


  I must have been unclear in my previous message.  The purpose of
 controlling
  cable cm CE is to control the resultant cable-induced RE, which are
  controlled to protect tunable antenna-connected radio receivers, period.
  There was never any other purpose for controlling CE or RE.
 
  Ken Javor

 Ed  Price
 ed.pr...@cubic.com
 Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
 Cubic Defense Systems
 San Diego, CA.  USA
 858-505-2780 (Voice)
 858-505-1583 (Fax)
 Military  Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
 Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis

 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael 

Testing - Pls ignore

[Raymond . Li]

Testing




Legally privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee(s) legally indicated in this message (or
responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or
deliver this message to anyone.  In such case, you should destroy this message,
and notify us immediately.  If you or your employer does not consent to Internet
e-mail messages of this kind, please advise us immediately.  Opinions,
conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or
endorsed by my firm or employer unless otherwise indicated by an authorised
representative independent of this message.  Please note that neither my
employer nor I accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your
responsibility to scan attachments (if any).



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Looking at leakage current specs

[Gary McInturff]

Was reviewing a number of power supply specifications and would like
to parallel a couple, but the leakage/touch current on them is in the 2 mA
range. Isn't most of the leakage current produced (produced might not be the
word I want) in the upfront filter caps - W and Y capacitors and such? If I
parallel these aren't I likely to see a significant increase in the leakage
current, and probably blow by the 3.5 mm requirement for ITE?
Would the measurement be made twice, once for each supply or would I
have to provide a common input to both supplies and then measure between
chassis and this common point's protective earth terminal?
Gary

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1

[Joe Finlayson]

...right from UL's web site:

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/311101.html

-Original Message-
From: Veit, Andy [mailto:andy.v...@mts.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:45 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1




Folks-
Can someone give the scope of UL 3111-1?  Or tell me how is it's scope
differs from UL 3101-1?
I have a copy of UL 3101-1, and it appears that it is very similar to IEC
1010-1, but I don't have a copy of UL 3111-1 (yet!).
I read a message in the IEEE-PSTC archive where someone said that UL created
the standards 3111-1 and 3101-1 from IEC 1010-1, but there were no further
details about how the standards differ.

Thank you-
-Andy Veit

Andrew Veit
Systems Design Engineer
MTS Systems Corp
Ph: 919.677.2507
Fax: 919.677.2480
1001 Sheldon Drive 
Cary, NC 27513 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: HP probe

[Price, Ed]

Dave:

See http://contact.tm.agilent.com/tmo/datasheets/English/85024A.html,

300Khz to 3 GHz

Ed


Ed  Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA.  USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (Fax)
Military  Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis


-Original Message-
From: Dave Wilson [mailto:dwil...@alidian.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:59 AM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: HP probe



Can anyone tell me the frequency range of the HP85024A? I've looked on the
Agilent web-site but can't find a reference to it.

Thanks,

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks Inc.

www.alidian.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1

[Andrews, Kurt]

Andy,

The complete scope of all UL standards is available on the UL web site. Just
go to http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ and click on Scopes of all Current
UL Standards.

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer

Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Drive
Westerville, Ohio 43081
voice:  614.846.6175
toll free:  800.848.4525
fax: 614.846.7791

http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ 


-Original Message-
From:   Veit, Andy [SMTP:andy.v...@mts.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:45 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1



Folks-
Can someone give the scope of UL 3111-1?  Or tell me how is it's
scope
differs from UL 3101-1?
I have a copy of UL 3101-1, and it appears that it is very similar
to IEC
1010-1, but I don't have a copy of UL 3111-1 (yet!).
I read a message in the IEEE-PSTC archive where someone said that UL
created
the standards 3111-1 and 3101-1 from IEC 1010-1, but there were no
further
details about how the standards differ.

Thank you-
-Andy Veit

Andrew Veit
Systems Design Engineer
MTS Systems Corp
Ph: 919.677.2507
Fax: 919.677.2480
1001 Sheldon Drive 
Cary, NC 27513 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Copper Thieving

[Stephen Phillips]

  Copper applied to the outer PCB layers, in a pattern, 
to even out the copper placement so the board is less 
likely to warp through soldering.  Obviously, it would 
be put where there is not etch, large open areas, to 
somewhat offset where you might have planes of 
copper elsewhere on the layer.  

  Beware of Creepage and Clearance violations 
(if applicable).  Some PCB fab. houses have 
carte-blanche to add this, we don't allow that - 
and control it as part of our own PCB CAD 
instead.  

  Best regards, 
  Stephen  

At 09:15 AM 1/18/01 Thursday , rehel...@mmm.com wrote:

Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is copper
thieving?


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Copper Thieving

[reheller]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge..what is copper
thieving?


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.

[reheller]

-- Forwarded by Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US on
01/18/2001 08:07 AM ---


Robert E. Heller
01/18/2001 08:08 AM

  3M Product Safety, St. Paul, MN 55107 
  76-1-01   

  EMC Laboratory Fax:  651-778-6252 





To:   Doug Best doug.b...@ifrsys.com
cc:
Subject:  RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.  (Document link: Robert E. Heller)

My read on this is if the equipment can be operated (in real life) with the
battery charger attached then it must be tested with the battery charger in
place (this would be worst case configuration).

If it cannot be operated then test the battery charger with the unit not
operating (charge mode only).

I do not believe that you can declare non-compliance.

For others readingwould it be O.K. to declare in the
operator's manual that the unit must not be operated while charging?

=



Doug Best doug.b...@ifrsys.com on 01/16/2001 04:17:32 PM

Please respond to Doug Best doug.b...@ifrsys.com


To:   Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com
cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (bcc: Robert E.
  Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US)
Subject:  RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.




Agreed Jim,

I just got done testing a portable piece of test equipment that has a AC
power draw of 110W nominally, this equipment has a lead acid battery that
provides battery operation, when the battery is fully charged the equipment
passes class A marginally (10% under the limit worst case), but when the
battery charger is running the AC power draw increases 20 Watts and the
13th
harmonic goes out of spec (8-10% above limit).

My question is, can we specify compliance to the specification when the
battery is suitably charged, and note non-compliance if the first condition
is not meant?

-Doug Best
Compliance Technician
IFR Americas Inc.
Design Engineering
doug.b...@ifrsys.com

-Original Message-
From: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 13:44
To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum'
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.


Jim:  You wrote essentially anything will pass now.  Oh how I wish that
were true!

The absolute requirements do make it easier for low power equipment to
pass,
but for anything  above several hundred watts all bets are off and running
the test can lead to ugly surprises.  For example, I recently tested 2
battery chargers to A14:  one with approx. 400W draw and the other approx.
800W.   The 400W one just barely passes and the 800W one fails miserably.
Smaller bulk filter caps would help, but there's that pesky functionality
thing!

Regards,

Jim Eichner
Sr. Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Mobile Markets
Xantrex Technology Inc.
Email: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
Website: www.xantrex.com
Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists.
Honest.




-Original Message-
From: Jim Conrad [mailto:jc...@shore.net]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 12:10 PM
To: 'Allan, James'; brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.



Al,

It relaxed the limits for almost all products except ITE, TV's, etc.  I do
not remember all the details since I have not had to apply it yet.
Essentially the harmonic current limits are no longer relative based on the
power consumption of the device but based are on absolute values as if the
product was drawing 15A(not sure of this exact #).   But essentially
anything will pass now.  You can purchase A14 on the IEC web site at
www.iec.chThere is also a 75 watt exemption.  Products less that 75
watts automatically comply.

Best regards,


Jim'


Jim Conrad
P.O. Box 25
Hamilton, MA 01936-0025
USA

jc...@shore.net
Phone #:  978-468-3909
FAX #: 978-468-3909


-Original Message-
From:Allan, James [mailto:james_al...@milgo.com]
Sent:Friday, January 12, 2001 2:53 PM
To:brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)';
'jc...@shore.net'
Subject:RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.

In a nutshell how did A14 change 61000-3-2.  I don't have a copy of
A14 yet.

Jim Allan
Manager, Engineering Services
Milgo Solutions LLC
1619 N Harrison Parkway
Sunrise, FL, 33323
E-mail james_al...@milgo.com
Phone (954) 846-3720
Fax (954) 846-5693

 -Original Message-
 From:Jim Conrad [SMTP:jc...@shore.net]
 Sent:Friday, January 12, 2001 10:09 AM
 To:brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)'
 Subject:RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.


 Yes, you can use the A14 for the January 1, 2001 compliance.  Just be
sure
 to add 61000-3-2 A14 to your DOC.

 Best regards,

 Jim

 Jim Conrad
 P.O. Box 25
 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025
 USA

 jc...@shore.net
 Phone #:  978-468-3909
 FAX #: 978-468-3909


 

RE: HP probe

[Andrews, Kurt]

Dave,

Here are all the specs from the 2000 Agilent catalog. I'm including all of
them in case you end up needing more than just the frequency range.

Input Capacitance (at 500 MHz): 0.7 pF (nominal)
Input Resistance: 1 M? (nominal)
Bandwidth: 300 kHz to 3 GHz (usable to 100 kHz)
Gain (at 500 MHz): 0 dB ±1 dB
Average Noise Level (10 Hz  to 10 MHz): 1 mV
Frequency Response:
±1 dB (300 kHz to 1 GHz)
+2, ?3 dB (1 GHz to 3 GHz)
Input Voltage for 1 dB Compression: 0.3 V peak
Maximum Safe RF Voltage: 1.5 V peak (with 10:1 divider 15 V peak)
Noise Figure (nominal): 50 dB (100 MHz); 25 dB (100 MHz to 3 GHz)
Distortion (at 0.3 V): ?30 dBc nominal
Includes: Type-N male adapter, 10:1 divider, spare probe tips, (5) 2.5 inch
ground leads, hook tip, spanner tip, and probe tip nut driver.


Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer

Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Drive
Westerville, Ohio 43081
voice:  614.846.6175
toll free:  800.848.4525
fax: 614.846.7791

http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ 


-Original Message-
From:   Dave Wilson [SMTP:dwil...@alidian.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 17, 2001 2:59 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject:HP probe


Can anyone tell me the frequency range of the HP85024A? I've looked
on the
Agilent web-site but can't find a reference to it.

Thanks,

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks Inc.

www.alidian.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1

[Chaplis, Bob]

Gentleman,

I also use these standards and I agree with Andys statement. but you
need to be aware that there are US and Canadian deviations added to these
standards and as far as I recall, the US and Canada have the only deviations
to the 1010 standard.

Bob Chaplis
   Genrad

 -Original Message-
 From: acar...@uk.xyratex.com [SMTP:acar...@uk.xyratex.com]
 Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:36 AM
 To:   Veit, Andy
 Cc:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject:  Re: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1
 
 
 Andy
 
 I use these two standards on a daily bases and you are right, they are
 pretty
 much identical. Yet to find a difference.
 
 UL3101-1 Electrical Equipment for Laboratory Use - General Requirements
 
 UL3111-1 Electrical  Measuring and Test Equipment - General Requirements.
 
 UL3111-1 is the UL version of IEC1010 when it comes to electrical test
 equipment, e.g. a DVM.
 
 Do not ask me why UL in it's infinite wisdom thought they needed two
 identical
 standards Probably to make you two inspection fees on two Files. !!!
 
 Veit, Andy wrote:
 
  Folks-
  Can someone give the scope of UL 3111-1?  Or tell me how is it's scope
  differs from UL 3101-1?
  I have a copy of UL 3101-1, and it appears that it is very similar to
 IEC
  1010-1, but I don't have a copy of UL 3111-1 (yet!).
  I read a message in the IEEE-PSTC archive where someone said that UL
 created
  the standards 3111-1 and 3101-1 from IEC 1010-1, but there were no
 further
  details about how the standards differ.
 
  Thank you-
  -Andy Veit
 
  Andrew Veit
  Systems Design Engineer
  MTS Systems Corp
  Ph: 919.677.2507
  Fax: 919.677.2480
  1001 Sheldon Drive
  Cary, NC 27513
 
  ---
  This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
  Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
 
  To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
   majord...@ieee.org
  with the single line:
   unsubscribe emc-pstc
 
  For help, send mail to the list administrators:
   Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
   Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 
  For policy questions, send mail to:
   Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 
 --
 
 Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer
 Xyratex Engineering Laboratory
 Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014
 
 
 
 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
 
 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc
 
 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 
 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1

[ScottBarrows]

Hi All,
As it was told to me,

IEC 1010 encompasses several product types, with particular requirements for 
several others. When UL was in the process of adopting 1010, they were not 
allowed, by ANSI, to eliminate the seperate standards (according to the 
descriptions in the scope of 3111 and 3101) so they had to have the 2 almost 
identicle standards. 

There is also a third standard involved, 3123-1, same problem.

Scott

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: UL 3111-1 vs. UL 3101-1

[Andrew Carson]

Andy

I use these two standards on a daily bases and you are right, they are pretty
much identical. Yet to find a difference.

UL3101-1 Electrical Equipment for Laboratory Use - General Requirements

UL3111-1 Electrical  Measuring and Test Equipment - General Requirements.

UL3111-1 is the UL version of IEC1010 when it comes to electrical test
equipment, e.g. a DVM.

Do not ask me why UL in it's infinite wisdom thought they needed two identical
standards Probably to make you two inspection fees on two Files. !!!

Veit, Andy wrote:

 Folks-
 Can someone give the scope of UL 3111-1?  Or tell me how is it's scope
 differs from UL 3101-1?
 I have a copy of UL 3101-1, and it appears that it is very similar to IEC
 1010-1, but I don't have a copy of UL 3111-1 (yet!).
 I read a message in the IEEE-PSTC archive where someone said that UL created
 the standards 3111-1 and 3101-1 from IEC 1010-1, but there were no further
 details about how the standards differ.

 Thank you-
 -Andy Veit

 Andrew Veit
 Systems Design Engineer
 MTS Systems Corp
 Ph: 919.677.2507
 Fax: 919.677.2480
 1001 Sheldon Drive
 Cary, NC 27513

 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

--

Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer
Xyratex Engineering Laboratory
Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

GS N151

[Brian . McAuliffe]

Can anybody identify with below ?

Brian
Tellabs


-Original Message-
From:   richard Murphy richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com 
[SMTP:richard Murphy richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:41 AM
To: McMahon, Nuala
Cc: richard Murphy richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com
Subject:International safety standards

Nuala,
I spoke to you when I worked in Schaffner as you can see I have moved 
on to
Flextronics.
I wonder if you help me please I am looking for information on 
international
safety standards they are as follows:

N151, I think it maybe Japanese or Korean?
GS, I think it maybe German?

I have checked various website without any success.

Richard Murphy.
Ext no: 15125.
Phone no : 353 61 485125.
e-mail:richard.mur...@ie.flextronics.com




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

FW: HP probe

[Dave Wilson]

  -Original Message-
 From: Dave Wilson  
 Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:59 AM
 To:   'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
 Subject:  HP probe
 
 Can anyone tell me the frequency range of the HP85024A? I've looked on the
 Agilent web-site but can't find a reference to it.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Dave Wilson
 Alidian Networks Inc.
 
 www.alidian.com
 
 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Beta Shipments

[O'Shaughnessy, Paul]

Can anyone direct me to the EC rules which govern beta site installations?

For example, what if a contract is signed with the beta site, specifying
that the unit is not yet evaluated, and specifying terms of beta testing and
timeframe.  Would that qualify as under the control of the manufacturer?
Having your own people run the thing, even at a remote site, rather defeats
the intention of a beta test, and it's a bit hard to believe that this is
how it's really done.

Thanks,

Paul O'Shaughnessy
Affymetrix, Inc.

Lou Guerin wrote:

For Europe you have less leeway,  you can show the product at a trade show
with a PROMINENT label declaring that the product has not been evaluated for
compliance to the appropriate LVD and EMC directives.  The directives
prohibit the placing on the market or putting into service any product
that does not conform to the directives. This only allows you to demonstrate
the product at the customer's site if it is always under the control of the
manufacturer. For a Beta unit, you would need to send one of your people to
operate the equipment until it is returned to your factory or you get
approvals on that configuration.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

HP probe

[Dave Wilson]

Can anyone tell me the frequency range of the HP85024A? I've looked on the
Agilent web-site but can't find a reference to it.

Thanks,

Dave Wilson
Alidian Networks Inc.

www.alidian.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Annother EN61000-4-8 Issue

[WOODS]

Our magnetics guru had the answer. The ground reference plane forms a mirror
image of the loop. Instead of the field increasing as the bottom conductor
is approached, the image forces the field to be uniform right down to the
plane. This is actually shown in Figures D7 and D8. Note that it is not
required that the loop be electrically connected to the plane for this
theory to work. The conductor could be spaced by a thin insulator. In fact,
this is what would happen with a multi-turn loop. In this case, the field
would not be exactly uniform very near the plane, so that is why the 0.1 m
spacer is used. However, in the end, I think Clause 7.2 and 7.4 are in
conflict and that 7.4 is correct. That is, any spacer of at least 0.1 m may
be used. 

Richard Woods

--
From:  WOODS, RICHARD
Sent:  Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:25 PM
To:  'emc-pstc'
Subject:  Annother EN61000-4-8 Issue

I believe that Clause 7.2 contains an error.

Clause 6.2.1 requires the field variation be no more than +/- 3 dB over the
volume of the EUT. For a 1 m square loop, the test volume is 0.6 m x 0.6 m x
0.5 m (h) with the loop centered on the test volume. Therefore, a vertically
oriented loop would be spaced at least 0.2 m above and below an EUT that
would fit within the test volume.

However, the first paragraph in Clause 7.2 requires that the equipment be
raised 0.1 m above the ground reference plain. - no more and no less. But,
the third paragraph of Clause 7.4 says that 0.1 m is the minimum distance. 

It appears that Clause 7.2 is in error and Clause 7.4 is correct (it to is
wrong for a 1 m loop, but would be correct for a 0.5 m and smaller loop).

Comments?

Richard Woods

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Site Correlation

[Chris Maxwell]

Paolo,

Actually, we did give a damn about you.  If you just follow for a couple of
paragraphs, maybe you'll see how.   One of the problems with small
pre-compliance chambers is that it is sometimes hard if not impossible to
fit the DUT and all of its associated cabling into the chamber.  Also, even
if you can fit the cables, it may be hard for a small chamber to measure the
cable emissions accurately.  We use a 0.7m cubic G-Strip (not a G-TEM) cell
for pre-compliance emissions measurements and A-B comparisons.  The chamber
is fully anechoic, so reflections aren't a problem.  However, cables are a
problem.  

Usually, what I end up doing is:

After we finish pre-compliance, I take a product to the OATS for compliance
testing.

I bring the product back to our lab and put it in our chamber.  However, in
order to fit it in, I usually have to strip the serial cable, keyboard,
mouse, parallel cable and VGA cable.  All that I can fit in the chamber is
the unit and the power supply.  

I then take a reference measurement of this stripped system.  I store
these readings for future A-B comparisons.

When I do these A-B comparisons, it would be nice to supplement them with
coupling clamp measurements from the cables before I remove them.  I would
then possibly have a more complete picture by using the small cell to assess
the enclosure radiation and the coupling clamps to assess the cable
radiation.  

I believe that this is how the CE vs. RE measurement methods for cables got
mixed into the thread.  Using a combination of small chambers for the
enclosure emissions and clamp measurements for the cable emissions may
provide a more complete picture than using the chamber alone.  This may have
been where Ken Javor was going when he brought up the possibility of
measuring cable emissions with a clamp.  

I personally don't know of anybody performing this combination
measurement.  It sounds like a good idea, but it would be nice to hear if
anyone has real life experience with it.  It may add some useful information
to the original question that started this thread, which was how well small
chamber emissions measurements correlate with OATS measurements.  

Chris Maxwell
Design Engineer
GN Nettest
6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4
Utica,NY 13502
email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com
phone:  315-266-5128
fax: 315-797-8024


 -Original Message-
 From: Paolo Roncone [SMTP:paolo...@tin.it]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:08 AM
 To:   Lothar Schmidt
 Cc:   EMC-PCST (E-mail)
 Subject:  RE: Site Correlation
 
 
 Good point Lothar,
 it was about time that the original technical grounds and limitations of
 CE 
 method were brought up.
 Just one additional point: with the ever increasing operating frequencies 
 of many electronic products, box and/or PCB level radiation is getting
 more 
 and more important vs cable radiation (and as a by-product cable layout 
 should weigh less in measurement uncertainty).
 
 One last point: I was a bit perplexed by the way this thread shifted from 
 the original question. I myself stepped in early with a question about 
 fully-anechoic vs semi-anechoic pre-compliance chambers but then the 
 subject switched to the CE vs RE issue and nobody gave a damn about me..
 
 Paolo
 
 
 At 11:28 AM 1/16/01 -0800, Lothar Schmidt wrote:
 
 I have the feeling that different issues are mixed in this discussion.
 
 supposed that CE vs. RE methods is the issue, I can give you some
 historical
 information. The CE method is used as a simplified method for the
 radiation
 of the tested device.
 The CE method was used for devices which have to met several conditions
 1. the cable length was long compared to the size of the device ( the
 longest side should not be longer than 80 cm)
 2. the number of cable is limited to one or maximum 2 cables.
 3. the frequencies produced in the equipment have to be low due the
 limitation of the method to 300 MHz.
 
 Reasons for
 1. the cable should be the preferred antenna for the emission of the
 device
 2. You can only made a correlation between CE and RE if all the radiated
 by
 the one cable. You will not be able to calculate the sum of different
 cables
 because you don't know the relation.
 3. The method is only specified up to 300 MHz. At higher frequencies the
 cables act different.
 
 This method was used e. g. simple household devices and tools.
 
 I don't know if I got the real point because I didn't followed the whole
 discussion, but perhaps I can put in some more ideas.
 
 Best Regards
 
 Lothar Schmidt
 Technical Manager EMC/Bluetooth,
 BQB, Competent Body
 Cetecom Inc.
 411 Dixon Landing Road
 Milpitas, CA 95035
 Phone: +1 (408) 586 6214
 Fax:   +1 (408) 586 6299
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:45 AM
 To: Ralph Cameron; chris maxwell; dan kwok
 Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
 Subject: Re: Site Correlation
 
 
 
 I am getting the distinct (but uncomfortable) feeling that was is 

RE: RTTE Directive Article 6.4 Notification Contact for Greece

[Andrea Bishop]

I received the following reply from the Greek Ministry when I asked the
question.


National authority responsible for spectrum management:
- Mr.  Nissim Benmayor  (head of the section)
(+30 1)  650 85 71
ymera...@hol.gr
(+30 1)  650 85 70   fax

***Mss.  Irini Athanasiou (+30 1)  650 85 54
yme...@hol.gr
(+30 1)  650 85 60   fax

regards

Andrea Bishop
Compliance Manager
BABT Product Service Ltd




-Original Message-
From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com]
Sent: 16 January 2001 22:39
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RTTE Directive Article 6.4 Notification Contact for Greece



Dear Colleagues,

Has anyone has any success finding a contact to give notice to under Art 6.4
for Greece?

Thanks 


Best Regards,


Kevin Harris
Manager, Approval Services
Digital Security Controls
3301 Langstaff Road
Concord, Ontario
CANADA
L4K 4L2

Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378
Fax +1 905 760 3020

Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org